Having [plus some words] means that the exact words have been changed (so that the quote makes sense when placed into the article) but that the meaning remains unchanged. So in the quote above, Webber likely said "It was an absolute no-brainer for us to be here," but the editors changed the "us" to "Sebastien and I" as it doesn't change the meaning but makes it clearer to the reader who he was referring to.

Having [...] means an element of the quote has been removed - but, again, it shouldn't change the meaning.

Having [plus some words] means that the exact words have been changed (so that the quote makes sense when placed into the article) but that the meaning remains unchanged. So in the quote above, Webber likely said "It was an absolute no-brainer for us to be here," but the editors changed the "us" to "Sebastien and I" as it doesn't change the meaning but makes it clearer to the reader who he was referring to.

Having [...] means an element of the quote has been removed - but, again, it shouldn't change the meaning.

Shame they mucked up the grammar by using "I" instead of "me" though. It's quite a simple rule: unless you're speeaking in some sort of cod "Mummerzet" accent, you wouldn't say "It was an absolute no-brainer for I to be here" but "It was an absolute no-brainer for me to be here". Adding "Sebastian and" or even "him and" doesn't magically change it from "me" to "I". Although at least they didn't put "me and Sebastian", which is equally wrong.